Blu-ray Review A Few Words About A few words about…™ The Bridges of Toko-Ri – in Blu-ray (1 Viewer)

[Robert Harris]

We'll cut to the chase on this one.

Except in its original release, I've never seen The Bridges of Toko-Ri looking anything like this new Kino release from Paramount.

Colors are so meticulously executed that I had to go to the screen to make certain that I was seeing a scan of c. 1953 Eastman 5248.

Directed by Mark Robson, and based upon the novel by James A. Michener, Bridges beautifully stands the test of time.

A few words from Mr. Crowther of The New York Times:

"In putting forth their stories, [the filmmakers] have been as meticulous and authentic as they have been with Navy details. They have cast the film to perfection and seen that it is played with rare restraint.William Holden, who plays the pilot, shows a man of mature intelligence, collecting himself for a perilous effort, from which he sees there is no backing down. Fredric March as the paternalistic admiral fairly cracks with the tension of concern, and Charles McGraw as the air group commander carries grave responsibilities with grim resolve. Grace Kelly is briefly bewitching as the pilot's wife, who visits him in Japan, and Mickey Rooney is a pint-sized tornado as a helicopter pilot who loves to clown and fight... The questions put in this picture as to the point of the Korean war and the great personal sacrifices in it are not answered, nor are the answers sought. Its purpose is not to answer questions. Its purpose simply is to show the human and professional resolution, organization and sacrifice that prosecution of the war required. And it has fulfilled this purpose in a truly efficient and moving way. One of the best of modern war pictures is "The Bridges at Toko-ri.""

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Upgrade from DVD - Absolutely!

Worth your attention - 9

Slipcover rating - 1

Very Highly Recommended

RAH



Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate, HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

 

[Flashgear]

Great to hear that this transfer looks so spectacular, thank you Robert! Being the best by far of a handful of high quality American features produced on the grim Korean War, it deserves nothing less! Essential for fans of it's four great leads. I should have it soon, the first time I'll have ever seen it in proper A/R. My lord, Earl Holliman is 94 now!

 

[benbess]

Watching my new blu-ray of this now. Had to get updated to the latest firmware to get it to play.

The movie looks great! My first time seeing it in the intended widescreen aspect ratio. One of the remarkable things about this movie is that parts of it were filmed on a real aircraft carriers like the one below. The interior control room in the aircraft carrier, where they plan and monitor attacks, I think may have influenced George Lucas, because the rebel base center at the end of A New Hope looks a bit similar in some ways.

My top three roles for William Holden are Sunset Blvd, The Bridges at Toko-Ri, and The Bridge on the River Kwai, although of course he did a lot of other good movies too. Frederic March is one of those actors who somehow grabs me in. The rest of the cast is strong and varied too, including Grace Kelley, Mickey Rooney, Earl Holliman, etc.

USS Oriskany - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Tino]

My top three roles for William Holden are Sunset Blvd, The Bridges at Toko-Ri, and Bridge of the River Kwai, although of course he did a lot of other good movies too

Number 1 for me by far is of course Stalag 17.

 

[David_B_K]

I won't have time to watch this until the weekend, but I popped it in for a quick look-see. Quite remarkable, one of the best Kino discs ever.

 

[JPCinema]

I watched it last night. Wow! An amazing transfer.

 

[commander richardson]

We'll cut to the chase on this one.

Except in its original release, I've never seen The Bridges of Toko-Ri looking anything like this new Kino release from Paramount.

Colors are so meticulously executed that I had to go to the screen to make certain that I was seeing a scan of c. 1953 Eastman 5248.

Directed by Mark Robson, and based upon the novel by James A. Michener, Bridges beautifully stands the test of time.

A few words from Mr. Crowther of The New York Times:

"In putting forth their stories, [the filmmakers] have been as meticulous and authentic as they have been with Navy details. They have cast the film to perfection and seen that it is played with rare restraint.William Holden, who plays the pilot, shows a man of mature intelligence, collecting himself for a perilous effort, from which he sees there is no backing down. Fredric March as the paternalistic admiral fairly cracks with the tension of concern, and Charles McGraw as the air group commander carries grave responsibilities with grim resolve. Grace Kelly is briefly bewitching as the pilot's wife, who visits him in Japan, and Mickey Rooney is a pint-sized tornado as a helicopter pilot who loves to clown and fight... The questions put in this picture as to the point of the Korean war and the great personal sacrifices in it are not answered, nor are the answers sought. Its purpose is not to answer questions. Its purpose simply is to show the human and professional resolution, organization and sacrifice that prosecution of the war required. And it has fulfilled this purpose in a truly efficient and moving way. One of the best of modern war pictures is "The Bridges at Toko-ri.""

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Upgrade from DVD - Absolutely!

Worth your attention - 9

Slipcover rating - 1

Very Highly Recommended

RAH



Thank you for supporting HTF when you preorder using the link below. As an Amazon Associate, HTF earns from qualifying purchases. If you are using an adblocker you will not see link.

See on Amazon

great review ...thanks .

 

[Doug Wallen]

Just finished it. A first time viewing. Amazing looking film.

 

[Angelo Colombus]

Have the Imprint release but this is currently at a good price of $12.49 so i will buy it. Also the Kino release has a new transfer and the wide screen aspect ratio.

 

[AlanP]

My favorite Holden film "Love Is A Many Splendored Thing" !

 

[uncledougie]

Let’s face it, Holden was just an all purpose great actor and star (both aren’t mutually exclusive). He’d just done comedy well at this point in the then controversial comedy, The Moon Is Blue, would follow with romance dramas Love Is a Many Splendored Thing and Picnic, later in his career he excelled in westerns The Wild Bunch, Wild Rovers, and was every bit the impressive equal of Peter Finch in Network. So versatile, he could play any role believably. I have this film already in hand and hope to get around to it very soon. So glad to hear it meets or exceeds expectations.

 

[Flashgear]

I agree, William Holden was just so damn good in so many movies! I hadn't seen Counterfeit Traitor for a number of years until I got the recent KL Blu, and was reminded about how good his performance in that film was too. I just received the new KL Blu of The Bridges at Toko-Ri earlier today, a film that I've long loved, and will watch it tonight!

 

[cdirks]

We'll cut to the chase on this one.

Except in its original release, I've never seen The Bridges of Toko-Ri looking anything like this new Kino release from Paramount.

Colors are so meticulously executed that I had to go to the screen to make certain that I was seeing a scan of c. 1953 Eastman 5248.

Directed by Mark Robson, and based upon the novel by James A. Michener, Bridges beautifully stands the test of time.

A few words from Mr. Crowther of The New York Times:

"In putting forth their stories, [the filmmakers] have been as meticulous and authentic as they have been with Navy details. They have cast the film to perfection and seen that it is played with rare restraint.William Holden, who plays the pilot, shows a man of mature intelligence, collecting himself for a perilous effort, from which he sees there is no backing down. Fredric March as the paternalistic admiral fairly cracks with the tension of concern, and Charles McGraw as the air group commander carries grave responsibilities with grim resolve. Grace Kelly is briefly bewitching as the pilot's wife, who visits him in Japan, and Mickey Rooney is a pint-sized tornado as a helicopter pilot who loves to clown and fight... The questions put in this picture as to the point of the Korean war and the great personal sacrifices in it are not answered, nor are the answers sought. Its purpose is not to answer questions. Its purpose simply is to show the human and professional resolution, organization and sacrifice that prosecution of the war required. And it has fulfilled this purpose in a truly efficient and moving way. One of the best of modern war pictures is "The Bridges at Toko-ri.""

Image – 5

Audio – 5 (DTS-HD MA 2.0)

Pass / Fail – Pass

Plays nicely with projectors - Yes

Upgrade from DVD - Absolutely!

Worth your attention - 9

Slipcover rating - 1

Very Highly Recommended

RAH

Robert: Can you comment on the different aspect ratios for this film. From IMDB:
Aspect ratio: 1.37 : 1 (negative ratio); 1.85 : 1 (intended ratio)

The older 4:3 DVD (1.37 aspect ratio) shows a lot more picture (top & bottom) than the cropped 1.85 widescreen (intended) ratio. [So the theatrical release was projected with masking to create 1.85?] When playing back the 4:3 DVD, if I just use the "zoom 1/2" setting on the 1.37 frame, the resulting framing is comparable to the 1.85 frame. I understand that the widescreen framing is much more suitable for this particular film (an aircraft carrier looks GREAT), but there is a lot of missing visual content when cropping to 1.85. [Obviously, this is not uncommon, and many early DVD releases do not provide the WS version -- but it is quite noticeable on this title.] The REAL difference between the 4:3 and the 1.85 is the image quality, of course, though we have less of it.

[On a personal note, we first spoke back in the late 1970s when I was programming classic American films at Washington University in St. Louis, where I was Coordinator of Student Activities. Yes, a LONG time ago (you probably don't remember me at all!), but I've always been a big fan of your expertise!!]

Christopher Dirks

 

[Robert Harris]

Robert: Can you comment on the different aspect ratios for this film. From IMDB:
Aspect ratio: 1.37 : 1 (negative ratio); 1.85 : 1 (intended ratio)

The older 4:3 DVD (1.37 aspect ratio) shows a lot more picture (top & bottom) than the cropped 1.85 widescreen (intended) ratio. [So the theatrical release was projected with masking to create 1.85?] When playing back the 4:3 DVD, if I just use the "zoom 1/2" setting on the 1.37 frame, the resulting framing is comparable to the 1.85 frame. I understand that the widescreen framing is much more suitable for this particular film (an aircraft carrier looks GREAT), but there is a lot of missing visual content when cropping to 1.85. [Obviously, this is not uncommon, and many early DVD releases do not provide the WS version -- but it is quite noticeable on this title.] The REAL difference between the 4:3 and the 1.85 is the image quality, of course, though we have less of it.

[On a personal note, we first spoke back in the late 1970s when I was programming classic American films at Washington University in St. Louis, where I was Coordinator of Student Activities. Yes, a LONG time ago (you probably don't remember me at all!), but I've always been a big fan of your expertise!!]

Christopher Dirks

Christopher,

I recall the name. A belated welcome to HTF.

The reason wide-screen wasn’t used for home video until the late ‘80s was “boa constrictor effect,” ie having a sliver of information even on the largest tube monitors, gear like the Mitsubishi 35”.

Even the best filmmakers who shot open matte, think Mr. Kubrick, went along with the concept of open matte presentations for films created to be masked in theatrical projection.

Criterion was amongst the first to support wide screen transfers as opposed to letter-boxing (panning & scanning) especially anamorphic and wide-screen productions. I believe an early example was North by Northwest. Manhattan and El Aurens arrived c. 1989.

The reality re open-matte vs wide-screen is not that one is losing image, but rather that image not meant to be seen is being exposed, hence the term “protected for 1.85,” meaning no dolly tracks or mike booms in the 1.85 image. Expose the rest of the frame at your own risk.

 

[cdirks]

Christopher,

I recall the name. A belated welcome to HTF.

The reason wide-screen wasn’t used for home video until the late ‘80s was “boa constrictor effect,” ie having a sliver of information even on the largest tube monitors, gear like the Mitsubishi 35”.

Even the best filmmakers who shot open matte, think Mr. Kubrick, went along with the concept of open matte presentations for films created to be masked in theatrical projection.

Criterion was amongst the first to support wide screen transfers as opposed to letter-boxing (panning & scanning) especially anamorphic and wide-screen productions. I believe an early example was North by Northwest. Manhattan and El Aurens arrived c. 1989.

The reality re open-matte vs wide-screen is not that one is losing image, but rather that image not meant to be seen is being exposed, hence the term “protected for 1.85,” meaning no dolly tracks or mike booms in the 1.85 image. Expose the rest of the frame at your own risk.

Thanks, Robert, for that informational explanation. Over many years, I've slogged through and witnessed the numerous constantly changing (and improved) home video format offerings, starting first with VHS/Beta or LD or DVD (or BluRay, or 4K, or what's next?). [Cost me a bit of $$ to keep up, i.e., first it was those expensive laser discs ... and then as things improved, goodbye that entire library of mine, to be replaced by the next "latest and greatest".] When widescreen was first available in home video, it was still a 4:3 image with large top/bottom black borders (as you say, it gave you just a "sliver" of a picture even on the largest TV screens) -- and since TVs were still SD (HD didn't exist), the tiny image was far from detailed (pixels were blobs). It took quite a while for 16:9 widescreen to take hold in both home video offerings and the ability for TVs to display them. I do wonder -- if the open-matte format shows you what you shouldn't be able to see -- why the studios still released them to the public. Could it be ... $$$

 

[Robert Harris]

Thanks, Robert, for that informational explanation. Over many years, I've slogged through and witnessed the numerous constantly changing (and improved) home video format offerings, starting first with VHS/Beta or LD or DVD (or BluRay, or 4K, or what's next?). [Cost me a bit of $$ to keep up, i.e., first it was those expensive laser discs ... and then as things improved, goodbye that entire library of mine, to be replaced by the next "latest and greatest".] When widescreen was first available in home video, it was still a 4:3 image with large top/bottom black borders (as you say, it gave you just a "sliver" of a picture even on the largest TV screens) -- and since TVs were still SD (HD didn't exist), the tiny image was far from detailed (pixels were blobs). It took quite a while for 16:9 widescreen to take hold in both home video offerings and the ability for TVs to display them. I do wonder -- if the open-matte format shows you what you shouldn't be able to see -- why the studios still released them to the public. Could it be ... $$$

They generally had to fill the 4:3 screen, especially for broadcast TV. Uni used to run films wide-screen or adapted-scope with sides cropped, and add scrollwork or other imagery to fill out the frame.

I had this discussion with Mr. Kubrick when we were working on Spartacus, and he opted for wide-screen 2.21:1, while with his non-ws films, he had elected open matte in order to fill out the 4:3 frame. Or in the case of (if I’m remembering correctly) Lolita, using whatever open matte was available, and allowing the aspect ratio to change as the camera apertures changed.

 

[compson]

Christopher,

I recall the name. A belated welcome to HTF.

The reason wide-screen wasn’t used for home video until the late ‘80s was “boa constrictor effect,” ie having a sliver of information even on the largest tube monitors, gear like the Mitsubishi 35”.

Even the best filmmakers who shot open matte, think Mr. Kubrick, went along with the concept of open matte presentations for films created to be masked in theatrical projection.

Criterion was amongst the first to support wide screen transfers as opposed to letter-boxing (panning & scanning) especially anamorphic and wide-screen productions. I believe an early example was North by Northwest. Manhattan and El Aurens arrived c. 1989.

The reality re open-matte vs wide-screen is not that one is losing image, but rather that image not meant to be seen is being exposed, hence the term “protected for 1.85,” meaning no dolly tracks or mike booms in the 1.85 image. Expose the rest of the frame at your own risk.

I appreciate your insights, as always, but “letterboxing” referred to widescreen presentations and was the alternative to pan-and-scans. I fondly remember when finding a letterboxed version of practically any movie was a treat.

 

[J. Casey]

STRANGELOVE LD had changing aspect ratios.

 

[compson]

 

[Johannes S]

The reality re open-matte vs wide-screen is not that one is losing image, but rather that image not meant to be seen is being exposed, hence the term “protected for 1.85,” meaning no dolly tracks or mike booms in the 1.85 image. Expose the rest of the frame at your own risk.

There are a few films looking esthetically way better open matte compared to the matted 1:1.85 A/R.

One of these films is "The Far Country". Looks terribly claustrophobic in it's matted version.

Looking forward to get the Kino disc of the new 4k scan of The Bridges of Toko-Ri, but will definitely keep my "Imprint" open matte version!